Category Archives: Cross-Examination

Observations On Gerry Spence’s Witness Examination Technique.

30 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Experts, Litigation, Storytelling, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Observations On Gerry Spence’s Witness Examination Technique.

Tags

, , , ,

Gerry Spence Witness Examination Excerpts, by Paul Luvera, Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips

http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/gerry-spence-witness-examination-excerpts

In 1985, a man was shot dead on a rural road in Lincoln County, Ore. A teenage boy and his mother were indicted for the crime. Gerry Spence took on both cases for the defense pro bono and faced off against a young prosecutor named Joshua Marquis in the juvenile’s trial; the attorneys did not take a shine to each other. So contentious was the trial that they both ended up before the Oregon State Bar. A special report in the bar matter described their relationship as ‘reveal[ing] a degree of hostility and vituperation unique in our experience.’ The bar charges were dismissed, but the animosity remained. Spence wrote a book about the Oregon trials The Smoking Gun.

I was at the courthouse in Portland during a day or two of this trial. I was able to spend some time with Gerry and his partner during recess. He did an amazing job of obtaining an acquittal for his client. I have part of the transcript of that trial. I recently re-read Gerry’s examination of the polygraph operator from that trial. Gerry’s position was the accuser, wife of the deceased, was actually the one who accidentally shot her own husband and then blamed his client who was a neighbor.  He called the polygraph operator to show the accuser had failed the polygraph test. I’m setting out a few illustrations from that transcript for your consideration.

Continue reading →

Litigation and The Art of Storytelling.

07 Friday Aug 2015

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Jury Persuasion, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Storytelling, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Litigation and The Art of Storytelling.

Tags

, , , ,

Tell It: The Top 10 Posts on Story, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2015/07/tell-it-the-top-10-posts-on-story.html

The ‘story model’ (Hastie, Penrod & Pennington, 1983) for litigation persuasion is appropriately considered gospel at this point. At the same time, there is an art to it. In most courtrooms, I see litigators who are aware of the need to tell a story, but not necessarily versed in the techniques of storytelling. As I’ve explored from time to time in this blog, beyond laying out the events in temporal sequence, there are some nuances relating to structure, imagery, audience, and point of view. In short, there is a substantial ‘advanced course’ in narrative that effective trial lawyers should study. To make that a little easier, here are our top 10 posts so far on storytelling in trial. . . .

Continue reading →

Ex-Wife Cross-Examines Former Husband – No Squabbling!

20 Saturday Jun 2015

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Divorce, Family Law, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Ex-Wife Cross-Examines Former Husband – No Squabbling!

Tags

, , ,

Biglaw Divorce Gets Nasty As Ex-Wife Cross-Examines Former Husband, by Joe Patrice, Above The Law

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/06/biglaw-divorce-gets-nasty-as-ex-wife-cross-examines-former-husband/

It’s hard to imagine a scenario where this was a good idea.

Hydee Feldstein, a retired Sullivan & Cromwell partner, decided to cross-examine her ex-husband Peter Gregora, a former tax litigator at Irell & Manilla, in their contentious divorce case — a case where Feldstein alleges Gregory stole nearly $20 million from her. They say a lawyer representing herself has a fool for a client. Well, Feldstein has outside counsel — indeed counsel from two firms, Miller & Ayala LLP and the Rudd Law Firm — yet it was Feldstein who cross-examined her ex in open court. After reading the resulting train wreck, perhaps there are fools on all sides of Feldstein’s defense. . . .

Continue reading →

Objection! Argumentative!

09 Saturday May 2015

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Evidence, Making Objections, Objections, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Objection! Argumentative!

Tags

, , , ,

“Objection! Argumentative” Is That Really A Valid Objection During Cross Examination?, by Paul N. Luvera, Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips Blog

http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/objection-argumentative-is-that-really-a-valid-objection-during-cross-examintion

An outstanding Seattle plaintiff’s trial lawyer & I have been discussing the common objection made during cross-examination that the question is ‘argumentative’ because  of a trial we  have a common interest in where the  judge  sustains cross-examination questions that directly challenge the witnesses testimony as untruthful where the objection of ‘argumentative’ is made. My position is that cross-examination is confrontational and a testing ground for witness credibility by challenging the witness. I believe that judges who sustain an objection to the confrontation as ‘argumentative’ do not fully understand the function of cross-examination and the rules of evidence. I decided to share my viewpoint for your consideration. . . .

Continue reading →

Plaintiff Lawyer’s Cross-Examination Outline.

27 Saturday Dec 2014

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Plaintiff Lawyer’s Cross-Examination Outline.

Tags

, ,

A Cross-Examination Suggestion, by Paul Luvera, Plaintiff Lawyer Tips Blog

http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/a-cross-examination-suggestion

We all have our own way of preparing for cross-examination and for the style we adopt during the process. I thought I’d reprint a section of part of a cross-examination preparation from a drug company products case to give you an general idea of one of the steps I take in preparing for cross-examination. This would represent part of a whole examination and would be part of the preparation. The actual cross-examination could end up in outline form or it might be a stack of exhibits with tags containing ideas.

I’ve publishing it in its gross form before the additional editing and without explaining the significance of some of the outline as it’s simply an example to illustrate one way to prepare for cross-examination. It would be reviewed and revised and finally end up in a brief outline format. This is how I start the process. . . .

May Defense Counsel Ask Plaintiff Whether He Was Referred to Doctor?

21 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by in Attorney-Client Privilege, Cross-Examination, Defense Counsel, Depositions, Direct Examination, Discovery, Interrogatories, Litigation, Making Objections, Negligence, Personal Injury, Plaintiff's Counsel, Privilege and Confidentiality, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on May Defense Counsel Ask Plaintiff Whether He Was Referred to Doctor?

Tags

, , , ,

“Did Your Attorney Refer You to that Doctor?” by Daniel E. Cummins, TORT TALK Blog

http://tinyurl.com/phfds4w

In a recent Delaware County Court of Common Pleas decision in the case of English v. Stepchin, No. CP-23-CV-786-2014, 101 Del. 424 (C.P. Del. Co. Nov. 12, 2014 Kenney, P.J.), President Judge Chad F. Kenney upheld a defense attorney’s right to inquire of a personal injury plaintiff whether or not plaintiff’s counsel had referred the plaintiff to her treating physician.

This issue came before the court on a Motion for a Re-Deposition of the plaintiff by defense counsel.

At the original deposition, plaintiff’s counsel objected to the defense counsel’s question to the plaintiff as to whether or not plaintiff’s counsel had referred the plaintiff to her treating physicans. Plaintiff’s counsel asserted that such discovery was barred by the attorney-client privilege.
In his Opinion issued on the matter, President Judge Kenney held that, ‘whether counsel referred Plaintiff to her treating physicians does not constitute legal assistance so as to justify properly invoking the attorney-client privilege.’ More specifically, the court found that whether an attorney referred his client to a medical provider for treatment cannot be considered to have been a communication from an attorney to his or her client associated with the rendering of a legal opinion or the provision of legal services so as to invoke the applicability of the attorney-client privilege.

President Judge Kenney also stated that any asserted privilege ‘failed to outweigh the interest of the accessibility of material evidence to further the truth-determining process’ at a trial of a personal injury matter.

The Court granted Defendant’s Motion and ordered a 2nd deposition limited to the issue of who referred Plaintiff to her treating physicians.

Anyone wishing to review this decision, may click this LINK.

Former Convictions Do Not Always Ruin Witness Credibility.

28 Tuesday Oct 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Witness Preparation, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on Former Convictions Do Not Always Ruin Witness Credibility.

Tags

, , , , ,

Don’t Assume Prior Convictions Kill Credibility, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lgssphj

The witness is in good shape and the testimony looks to be great. There’s just one little problem in his past: a conviction. Litigators are understandably concerned about any threats to witness credibility, but if that threat comes in the form of a rap sheet, that’s viewed as a very damaging fact, if not a ticking time bomb. The effects of a prior conviction are most often written about in a criminal defense context where the research generally shows that the fact of a prior conviction significantly increases the chances of a current conviction, particularly where the prior conviction is for a similar crime. But it can be a factor for any witness who’s had a prior brush with the law. In civil cases, crimes involving dishonesty can be admitted for the narrow purpose of impeaching a witness’s credibility. A recent study (Stanchi & Bowen, 2014) that focused on a civil trial context looks at the question of whether the damage is as bad as one might suspect. The results? No it isn’t. In a realistic controlled study, the researchers found that prior conviction evidence did not increase the chances for an adverse verdict. Instead, emphasis on the conviction caused mock jurors to frame the trial as more of a zero sum contest on witness credibility — a frame that can end up actually benefiting the convicted witness.  

These results have some implications for attorneys assessing the risks to their witnesses’ credibility. . . . .

Adverse Witness Direct and Cross-Examination Tips.

16 Tuesday Sep 2014

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Trial Tips and Techniques, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on Adverse Witness Direct and Cross-Examination Tips.

Tags

, , , , ,

Flip the Order of Your Adverse Witness Preparation, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

 http://tinyurl.com/mhz8fes

Excellent related articles at the end of Dr. Broda-Bahm’s post. -CCE

 Let’s say that in trial, your witness will be called adverse and will go through the other side’s cross-examination before getting a chance at your direct.[1]  But in your preparation sessions, you should still take them through your direct examination first. That’s what I call the ‘flipped’ order, and in this post, I aim to make the case for this as the better approach. . . .

Can Your Witness Stand Up To Cross-Examination?

01 Friday Aug 2014

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Litigation, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Can Your Witness Stand Up To Cross-Examination?

Tags

, , , , ,

Counterpunch: Ten Ways to Fight Back on Cross, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://www.persuasivelitigator.com/2014/03/counterpunch-10-ways-to-fight-back-on-cross.html

A good witness should not see cross-examination as an argument, but neither should that witness see it as a time to be agreeable and passive with opposing counsel. Because the inherent conflict of cross piques the jurors’ interest, it can be a critical time. The two sides are in direct conflict and the jury has the ability to decide first-hand who seems to be winning at that moment. Given the stakes, it is too dangerous for a witness to just be led along by opposing counsel, comforting themselves with the knowledge that, ‘Well, at least I got to tell my side in direct,’ or, ‘My own attorney will give me a chance to fix all of this in redirect.’ Both are valid comforts, but effective direct and redirect will never completely erase the perceptual losses that can occur in cross. Substantively, the problem might be fixed, but jurors will still remember those moments where the witness looked weak, and that cannot help but influence their perception of your case and of the witness’s credibility.

The way I’ve explained it before is that cross-examination is, for the witness, a polite struggle. ‘Polite’ because the witness can’t afford to come off as too combative or uncooperative — ‘I’m just here to tell the truth…’ should be the tone. But ‘struggle,’ because there is a skilled advocate at the lectern whose job is to, at least for the moment, support his story and not yours. A good witness needs to work against that purpose. Like any advice, the message to fight back’ can be taken too far, or not far enough. It is a matter of balance and practice, and it clearly helps to get feedback during a prep session or two to make sure the communication is assertive but not aggressive. With these considerations in mind, here are ten ways witnesses can maintain their own power while being cross-examined. . . .

Direct and Cross-Examination – Links, Tips, and Resources.

13 Sunday Jul 2014

Posted by in Child Witnesses, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Experts, Making Objections, Trial Tips and Techniques, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on Direct and Cross-Examination – Links, Tips, and Resources.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Examination and Cross-Examination: Getting the Facts, Trial Practice Skills, Pace Law Library

http://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/content.php?pid=149008&sid=1265851

Links on Direct Examination, Cross-Examination, Examining Expert Witnesses, Child Witnesses, and other related links. -CCE

Are Acronyms Effective or Alphabet Soup?

15 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by in Acronyms, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Jury Persuasion, Legal Writing, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Are Acronyms Effective or Alphabet Soup?

Tags

, , , , , ,

DUA: Don’t Use Acronyms, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigators Blog

http://tinyurl.com/p66tcgk

I’m monitoring a criminal trial this week, and at the end of opening statements, the judge looked at the jury and said, ‘Okay, both sides have been referring to ‘AUSAs’ — they know what that means and I know what that means, but I’m guessing that you don’t know that that means?” Head nods from the jury. ‘It means ‘Assistant U.S. Attorney,’ continued the judge, “so please fill that in wherever you hear it.” Good solution? Better than nothing. But it would have been best if both sides would have simply used the title instead of abbreviating it. The tiny amount of additional time it takes to say ‘Assistant U.S. Attorney’ rather than ‘USA’ is well worth it in terms of clarity and understanding.

But some attorneys, experts, and other witnesses continue to love the economy of the acronym. But particularly in spoken communication, and particularly in front of a jury, that economy comes at a cost: meaning lost in translation and increased cognitive workload even when it is translated. Practical persuaders before a lay audience are well advised to avoid acronyms almost entirely. Okay, I say almost entirely — there are some exceptions (and besides ‘Generally Avoid Acronyms’ would have been ‘GAA.’) The few acronyms that ought to still be used are those that have such widespread familiarity that they almost become words in their own right: USA, CNN, or ASAP. In all other cases where the acronyms don’t benefit from automatic translation, the litigator is best off choosing the full expression and not the acronym. This post takes a look at a few reasons, implications, and replacements for trial persuaders looking to lose the alphabet soup of acronyms. . . .

Preparing for Expert Witness Depositions.

01 Sunday Jun 2014

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Depositions, Discovery, Expert Witness, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Preparing for Expert Witness Depositions.

Tags

, , , , ,

Preparing for Expert Depositions by Looking Ahead to the Cross-Examination at Trial, by Evan Schaeffer, The Trial Practice Tips Weblog

http://tinyurl.com/kl6857f

Your preparation for depositions will generally be much easier if you think about the ways the testimony will be used at trial. This tip applies to most pretrial discovery: it’s almost never an end in itself, but something that will be used later in front of a jury. It’s no accident that the ins-and-outs of pretrial discovery often make more sense after a lawyer has witnessed some actual trials. When trials are scarce, even reading trial transcripts helps.

The looking-ahead-to-trial tip can be especially useful for deposing your opponent’s experts. If you often rely on outlines prepared by other lawyers, this method will also help you understand why it’s important to ask the questions lawyers typically ask when deposing experts. . . .

The Secret Of How To Ask For What You Want.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Jury Persuasion, Legal Argument, Legal Writing, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on The Secret Of How To Ask For What You Want.

Tags

, , , , ,

Ask For What You Want, posted by Elliott Wilcox, Trial Theater Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kkrtqwo

Mr. Wilcox’s suggestions on how to verbally ask for what you want can also be translated into a persuasive legal writing technique. The logic works either way. -CCE

How many times a day do you ask judges, clients, or co-workers to do something or to give you something? During any given week, you probably make hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of requests. You ask your co-worker to work on a project, you ask your assistant to handle a client issue, you ask your kids to help with the dishes. . . . The number of requests that you make each week is staggering. But how many of those requests are actually granted? Have you ever had a problem with someone not doing not what you asked?

Why?  You’re a lawyer. Shouldn’t you be the master of persuasion who can get what you want, when you want it, and how you want it, every single time?

Unless your name is ‘Svengali the Master Manipulator,’ chances are that many of your requests are not being granted, or at least not being carried out exactly the way you’d like to see them handled.  But it’s not because your requests are falling on deaf ears.  In fact, your listeners are probably hearing exactly what you’re saying.  The problem is that you’re asking for the wrong thing. . . .

The Strategy of Dissociation – Don’t Go To Trial Without It.

02 Friday May 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Defense Counsel, Direct Examination, Jury Persuasion, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on The Strategy of Dissociation – Don’t Go To Trial Without It.

Tags

, , , ,

Dissociate (to Separate Bad Image from Good Image in Litigation), by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://bit.ly/1lJsEka

At the start of their game last Sunday, members of the L.A. Clippers ceremonially left their warmup jackets in a heap in center court, and warmed up with their shirts turned inside-out in order to conceal the name and logo of the team. This act came in response to recorded comments by team owner Donald Sterling telling his girlfriend ‘not to bring them [‘black people’] to my games.’ The response by the players was a move of dissociation: a way to say “We are not that,” and to clarify, in no uncertain terms, that the owner’s racism does not represent the team. This need to dissociate – to separate one meaning from another – is common in all communication situations, including those that involve the potential for litigation. Recently, for example, General Motors made the bold move of offering a full and complete apology for its inaction in addressing a long-term problem with its ignition switches, but in subsequent congressional testimony, CEO Mary Barra was careful to draw a distinction between the ‘Old General Motors’ prebankruptcy, and the ‘New General Motors’ that today stands before congress, court, and consumers.

Dissocation plays a role in lower profile cases across the country as well. A range of litigation-relevant situations create a need to communicate that ‘we are not this.’ Like most good persuasive strategies, the notion has its roots in rhetoric, the ancient and modern study of the best available means of influence. But the idea is more than just ivory tower philosophy.  Dissociation also translates into some important practical strategies worth considering by trial attorneys in a number of situations. This post takes a look at the underpinning, as well as the concrete strategies of dissociation. . . .

The Art of Cross-Examination.

28 Monday Apr 2014

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on The Art of Cross-Examination.

Tags

, , ,

Some Thoughts About Cross Examination, by Paul N. Luvera, Plaintiff Trial Lawyer Tips

http://plaintifftriallawyertips.com/some-thoughts-about-cross-examination

London barrister Peter Brown wrote a book some years ago entitled ‘The Art of Questioning.’  In one chapter he wrote: Last summer, a motorcyclist was arrested in Oxford, England, for speeding. The lady prosecutor bore in on the defendant with a curved question:  ‘Mr. Setright, your motorcycle is capable, is it not, of exceeding the 70 mph speed limit? He answered: Certainly it can exceed that limit. But, the possibilities implicit in that physical ability are it relevant to these proceedings. We are not here to consider what I might have been doing, but for the prosecution to prove, if it can, that I was doing what they allege I was doing. Were it otherwise you might just as well be here accused of rape, simply on the grounds that I have the necessary apparatus.’ . . .

Apologizing Even When It’s Not Your Client’s Fault.

30 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Damages, Defense Counsel, Direct Examination, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Litigation, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Settlement, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Apologizing Even When It’s Not Your Client’s Fault.

Tags

, , , , , ,

Show You’re Sorry, Even When You’re Not at Fault, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://tinyurl.com/ntvjm5r

[A]s we’ve noted before, letting jurors, judges, and opposing parties hear an apology can be effective when you are responsible, or are likely to be found responsible, for at least part of the damage at issue in the case. But what about when you’re not? Does that second kind of “sorry,” meaning “I recognize your loss, but without accepting responsibility for it” create a persuasive advantage as well?

According to some new research, yes, it does. . . .

Like Us, Judges and Juries Get the “Munchies.”

08 Saturday Mar 2014

Posted by in Appellate Judges, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Defense Counsel, Direct Examination, Exhibits, Experts, Federal Judges, Judges, Jury Persuasion, Law Clerks, Litigation, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on Like Us, Judges and Juries Get the “Munchies.”

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Time Your Arguments to the Judge’s Lunch Breaks (and Adapt to All Decision Makers’ “Cognitive Load”), by  Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator  Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lebleml

It comes as no surprise that a hungry person, be it the judge or members of a jury, find it difficult to concentrate and focus on your client’s case. Long stretches of testimony and argument are hard enough to follow, especially if the case is complex with numerous exhibits and witnesses. Regardless how comfortable the chair, sitting for long periods trying to listen carefully to a case is hard work.

There is more than one way to consider your audience at a trial or hearing. Persuasive argument is one. Excellent trial preparation using technology is another. Considerate and well-timed rest and meal breaks are another tool that can be used to your advantage.

The Rocket Science Blog mentioned in this post can be found at http://tinyurl.com/3dg5e8n. – CCE

Anyone who argues in front of judges knows that human factors can weigh as heavily as the law in determining your judge’s decisions.  But it is still possible at times to be surprised at the degree of influence, as well as the banality of those human factors.  Case in point: lunch and snack breaks.  Recent research discussed in the excellent Not Exactly Rocket Science blog appears to show that judges’ decisions vary as a direct effect of the proximity of their morning snack or lunch break.  In case you are using your morning break or lunch hour to read this post, I’d like to make it worth your while by applying the study findings to the more general issue of your decision-makers’ mental work load and offering some recommendations for anyone who needs to make arguments to a potentially fatigued audience. . . .

Craig Ball On Being A Digital Forensic Witness.

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by in Affidavits, Cross-Examination, Depositions, Direct Examination, Discovery, E-Discovery, Evidence, Exhibits, Expert Witness Report, Expert Witnesses, Experts, Forensic Expert Witness, Hearsay, Legal Technology, Legal Writing, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Craig Ball On Being A Digital Forensic Witness.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Becoming a Better Digital Forensics Witness, by Craig Ball, Ball In Your Court Blog

 http://tinyurl.com/kgm8epj

I love to testify—in court, at deposition, in declarations and affidavits—and I even like writing reports about my findings in forensic exams.

I love the challenge—the chance to mix it up with skilled interrogators, defend my opinions and help the decision makers hear what the electronic evidence tells us.  There is a compelling human drama being played out in those bits and bytes, and computer forensic examiners are the fortunate few who get to tell the story.  It’s our privilege to help the finders of fact understand the digital evidence.[1]

This post is written for computer forensic examiners and outlines ways to become a more effective witness and common pitfalls you can avoid.  But the advice offered applies as well to almost anyone who takes the stand. . . .

. . .

Lawyers — First Impressions Stick!

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Exhibits, Experts, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Litigation, Making Objections, Mock Trials, Opening Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on Lawyers — First Impressions Stick!

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Expect First Impressions to be Carved in Stone, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator Blog

http://tinyurl.com/org7why

Please note additional links on first impressions, overcoming bad impressions, and using visual images to create a first impression at the bottom of this post at the Persuasive Litigator website. -CCE

We’ve all heard the old saying: You never get a second chance to make a first impression. It is true that when meeting someone new, our brain is quickly putting them into a number of categories. Their background, intelligence, friendliness, attitudes, trustworthiness, and a myriad of other aspects of character are all on their way to being locked into some pretty durable assumptions. In a legal setting, where a juror is reacting to a witness on the stand for example, we might want those credibility determinations to be made over time, informed by the full scope of the testimony. But don’t count on it. . . . 

More On Why Lawsuits Are So Expensive.

22 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by in Cross-Examination, Damages, Exhibits, Experts, Litigation, Motor Vehicle, Personal Injury, Plaintiff's Counsel, Product Liability, Trial Tips and Techniques, Video Deposition, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on More On Why Lawsuits Are So Expensive.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Why Lawsuits Are So Expensive, Pt. II, by Gregory H. Haubrich, Foshee & Yafee, Butter’s Blog

http://greghaubrich.com/2014/02/13/why-lawsuits-are-so-expensive-pt-ii/

In my previous edition of Butter’s Blog, Part I explored why lawsuits are so expensive. In Part II, we are going to break down the costs of getting your case to trial. To get a rough estimate of what your law firm may spend handling the case,  we must first look at what kind of case it is.

Intolerance Is A Door That Swings Both Ways When Presenting Your Case.

17 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Appellate Judges, Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Federal Judges, Judges, Jury Instructions, Jury Persuasion, Jury Selection, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Plaintiff's Counsel, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witness Preparation, Witnesses

≈ Comments Off on Intolerance Is A Door That Swings Both Ways When Presenting Your Case.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Account for Ideological Intolerance, by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator™

http://tinyurl.com/kovy8wo

It’s Valentine’s time again. It’s a holiday of love, but in the political world, we’re moving out of yet another debt ceiling standoff and there is no love lost between the two sides of the spectrum. Liberals point to yet another, albeit failed, attempt to hold the country’s full faith and credit hostage, while conservatives point to yet another increase in an already staggering national debt. Neither side can understand the values, arguments, and priorities of the other. And that’s just the debt. Add in social welfare programs, marriage equality, and — as the actual sign from an Arizona gun shop above testifies — gun control, and you’ve got a pretty bitter divide. Polling shows that we are politically more ‘tribal’ than ever before. As we’ve noted in earlier posts, liberals and conservatives appear to use their brains differently when assessing risk, and are resistant to applying basic empathy across the political aisles. . . .

Framing Your Legal Arguments To Persuade.

11 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, First Amendment, Jury Instructions, Legal Writing, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire

≈ Comments Off on Framing Your Legal Arguments To Persuade.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Frame It As “Freedom with Consequences,” by Dr. Ken Broda-Bahm, Persuasive Litigator

http://tinyurl.com/mvb6qjy

Ducks and Vikings have been prominent recently on the free expression front of the culture wars. The ‘Duck’ would be Duck Dynasty’s reality star Phil Robertson, who’s recent comments on homosexuality and race caused his network, A & E, to briefly suspend him from the show. The ‘Viking’ would be former Minnesota Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, who was released by the team after controversy following an editorial he wrote in favor of marriage equality. While Kluwe lost his job and Robertson kept his, the similarity in the cases is that both were framed in the public sphere as a question of free expression. But it is less the question of whether Robertson and Kluwe have free speech, but whether they have freedom from the employment consequences of that speech.

Courtroom Body Language – How to Read It and Use It In Court.

04 Saturday Jan 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Experts, Judges, Jury Selection, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Voir Dire, Witness Preparation

≈ Comments Off on Courtroom Body Language – How to Read It and Use It In Court.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Tips For Reading And Managing Courtroom Body Language, by Legal Skills Prof, Legal Skills Prof Blog

http://tinyurl.com/k7uxpr7

The most brilliant trial attorneys seem to have a natural instinct for reading people, knowing intuitively what a nod from a juror or glance from a judge implies. For the rest of us, there’s this handy cheat sheet that breaks down some of the most common body language exhibited in the courtroom. You can use it to modulate your own behavior, train your client, or gain additional insight into opposing counsel, judge and jury.

Sharpen Trial Advocacy Skills.

28 Saturday Dec 2013

Posted by in Closing Argument, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Jury Selection, Making Objections, Opening Argument, Trial Tips and Techniques, Witness Preparation

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

The Trial Lawyers Library, trialtheater blog

http://www.trialtheater.com/wordpress/the-trial-lawyers-library/

A trial lawyer’s list of recommended books to develop trial advocacy skills. Although some of the titles may surprise you, each has an intended purpose directly tied to trial advocacy. – CCE

 

 

Court Precludes Testimony of Rehabilitation Witness

30 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by in Admissibility, Appellate Law, Court Rules, Cross-Examination, Direct Examination, Evidence, Research, Tennessee Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Precludes Testimony of Rehabilitation Witness

Tags

, , , ,

Reputable Source?: Court of Appeals of Tennessee Precludes Testimony of Rehabilitation Witness Under Rule 608(a), by Evidence ProfBlogger, EvidenceProf Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lnf96hp

In Pyle v. Mullins, 2013 WL 6181956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013), the plaintiff sought to bolster his credibility after it had been attacked by the defense, but the court precluded this rehabilitation. Why?

Pyle then sought to elicit

character testimony from Jeff Boggan, one of Pyle’s customers. Boggan, a resident of Village Green Subdivision, testified Pyle mowed his lawn and he had known Pyle for 5 years. He testified Pyle was under contract by the homeowner’s association to mow all of the lawns in the subdivision. Pyle asked Boggan whether he was “familiar with [Pyle’s] reputation in that area for honesty?” In response, defense counsel objected as to relevance. The trial court sustained the objection.

Then . . . .